IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 126/2018 (filed on 25-06-2018)
Petitioner : K. Mohanlal,
Anjilimoottil House,
Parathode P.O.
Kanjirappally – 686512
(Anie Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite party : 1) T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons
Private Ltd.
7 B West Veli Street,
Madurai
2) T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons
Private Ltd.
Near Matha Hospital,
MC Road, Thellakom,
Kottayam.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Sony Sebtastian)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complainant purchased Mahindra Renault Logan car bearing reg.no.KL5AA2475 from Sajan Varghese, Malayilputhenveedu, Maroor on 25th Februuary,2016. The 1st opposite party is the authorised dealer and service agent of Mahindra and 2nd opposite party is its branch. On 10.1.2017 the complainant entrusted the said vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for repairing the lock kit. As against the assurance given by the 2nd opposite party the vehicle was delivered on 20.2.2017 and an additional bill for the repair of the wiring harness and starter aperture also was given in addition to the bill for the lock kit repair, which was done without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. Rs.7,587/- was charged for the wiring harness repair in addition to Rs.7,914/- of the lock kit repair.
At the time of delivery the complainant was informed that while replacing
the lock kit, the wiring harness was repaired and looped but the wiring failed. So the wiring harness was also repaired. Till then the vehicle had no problem regarding the wiring but subsequently within one week itself the vehicle started showing starting and electrical complaints. The stoppage of the engine while driving was frequent thereafter. At the end of March 2017 when the son of the complainant was travelling to Ernakulam the car got stuck up and was repaired by the road assistance team of 2nd opposite party replacing the TDC sensor and
Rs.6000/- was charged. The very next day again the car showed starting problem and the complainant sought road assistance. They advised to check the ECU of the vehicle and it was also advised that the TDC sensor was not having any complaint. The car also showed sensor and electrical complaints and as a result the speaker, lights in odometer, break etc. was also not working properly. As per the advice of the road assistance team the vehicle was taken to the 2nd opposite party for checking the complaint. The 2nd opposite party intimated that the problem was due to the wiring complaint and so the wiring kit had to be replaced. An advance amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the complainant for ordering wiring kit and on 10.04.17 it was intimated that the estimated charge of repairing would be Rs.50,000/-. But on 8.6.2017 a message was sent to the mobile of the complainant that the estimated bill would be Rs.61,000/-.Thereafter the completion of work was intimated on 28.06.2017 and a bill amount of Rs.98,728/- was charged. The reason for repair shown on the bills was ECU damage due to shorting of engine and dashboard wiring harness. There was no scratches or dents on the body of the vehicle till 30.6.2017. On the way back home the car stopped automatically and when the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party the service advisor and showroom Manager, responded in an awkward manner. Moreover the 2nd opposite party had not cured the scratches and dents caused to the car while it was in the workshop. All the problems of the car started from the workshop of the 2nd opposite party after 10.01.2017. The complainant had to spend an additional Rs.16,000/- for curing these problems. All the above acts from the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence this case is filed for compensation.
The opposite parties were duly served with the notice and they appeared and filed a joint version.
The opposite parties defended the case that the complainant’s vehicle manufactured in2009 had covered around 2 lakhs KMs and was brought to the 2nd opposite party at Thellakom on 10-01-17 with a complaint to the lock kit. On verification of the vehicle history, it was noted that during the visits of the vehicle to the opposite parties’ there was changes in the odometer readings decreasingly. The said vehicle was brought for an accident repair on 10.09.2015 and thereafter on 31-10-2015 after taking delivery of the same, the vehicle was not brought to the opposite parties’ service centre or any other authorised service centre of the manufacturer till 10-01-2017.On 10-01-2017 when the vehicle was brought with the complaint to the lock kit, it was found that the vehicle was being repaired at local workshops. At that time the complainant was informed that the lock kit as well as two wiring kits (wiring harness) needed replacement and that the two wiring kits themselves would cost Rs.20,000/-and Rs.29,000/- without tax. The labour charges amounting to Rs7587/-. Thereafter the TDC sensor of the vehicle was replaced at 1,19,070 kms on 3-3-2017. Thereafter on 4-4-2017 the vehicle was again brought complaining starting trouble and on verification it was noticed that the ECU and the wiring kits were faulty. The fault in ECU could be because of faulty wiring kit. So before replacing the ECU, the 2nd opposite party ordered for two wiring kits to be replaced from the manufacturer and upon replacement of wiring kits, it was known that the ECU was also faulty and thereon orders were placed for the ECU with the manufacturer. Since the wiring kits were expensive, the 2nd opposite party had required for an advance from the complainant. However the same was paid only after much delay. The opposite parties received the ECU from the manufacturer on 15-06-2017. The wiring kits and the ECU were installed and programmed and the vehicle was ready for delivery on 26-6- 2017 and all these facts were intimated to the complainant. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 30-06-2017 to his total satisfaction. Thereafter no complaint was registered by him or had he brought the vehicle to the opposite parties. No time frame was intimated to the complainant since at his request and risk, the wiring kits were tried to be repaired. The wiring kits were required to be replaced during the attention of 10-01-2017itself but hearing the cost of the wiring kits, the complainant requested to have the same attempted to be repaired at his risk. The vehicle was brought with electrical problem. The allegation that at the time when the vehicle was delivered back, it was intimated to the complainant that while replacing the lock kit, the wiring harness was repaired and looped but the wiring failed and so the wiring harness was repaired is utter falsehood and raised only to mislead the commission. The complainant actually took the road assistance on 3-3-2017and the cost of TDC sensor was Rs.4,673/-, roadside attending charges was Rs.727/- in total Rs.5,400/-., not 6,000/- as alleged. The allegation that the next day itself the vehicle again showed starting complaint and the road assistance team advised to check the ECU of the vehicle etc. are not correct. On 4-4-2017 the vehicle was brought to the 2nd opposite party with a complaint of the vehicle not starting, as already stated.
The ECU and the wiring kits were replaced. The complainant took considerable time in paying the advance amount. The bill amount of Rs.98,728/- was duly paid by the complainant when he took delivery of the vehicle to his total satisfaction, on 30-06-2017. Thereafter no complaint was reported to the opposite parties or to any other service centres of the manufacturer by the complainant. There was no latches or deficient acts from the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant has adduced evidence vide affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A6. The complainant was examined as PW1.The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibit B1.
While deciding the case, the matters to be considered are that whether the alleged deficiency of service is established by the complainant and if so what are the reliefs he is entitled to?
1. The complainant has alleged that the 2nd opposite party while rectifying the complaint of the lock kit of his car and starting trouble, mistakenly damaged the wiring harness and for replacing it a huge amount had to be paid by the complainant. The delivery was much delayed and after taking delivery also the complaints persisted causing extra expenses to the complainant. The opposite parties resisted all the allegations in the complaint and contended that all the repair works and replacements were done by the demand and consent of the complainant and no complaints were intimated to them after the repair works. So the complaint is filed on frivolous grounds.
2. The complainant has produced Exhibit A1 and A2 which are the invoices of the vehicle service on 20-02-17 for Rs.7,914/- and Rs.7,587/- respectively. The repair order date in these two documents are seen as 10.01.2017. The complainant had entrusted the vehicle for repair on 10-01-2017 but got the delivery only on 20-02-2017. On perusal of the A1 and A2, it is seen that wiring harness repair charges is shown in A2 as Rs.4,147/-.Further in the remark column it is recorded as “electrical works repaired in local workshop, wiring kit need to replace. Cust req to repaired wiring harness.”
Exhibit B1 is the vehicle history kept by the 2nd opposite party in which the 7th item of the labour description shown as Wiring harness repair charges. It is also recorded in the remarks column that “electrical works repaired in local workshop, wiring kit need to replace. Cust req to repaired wiring harness.”
3. The case of the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party had damaged the wiring harness at the time of the repair of the lock kit without his knowledge. But from these documents it is known that the complainant himself had requested for repairing the wiring harness. Exhibit A3 and A4 are the bills issued by the 2nd opposite party for the repair works done after few days of the breakdown of the vehicle when the complainant’s son was driving the vehicle. The vehicle was again entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for the complaint of not starting on 04-04-17. In A3 and A4 Remarks shown as “ECU damage due to shorting of engine and dash board wiring harness.”
4. The complainant, though alleging that the 2nd opposite party had done all these works without the consent of the complainant, has not challenged the bills anywhere or given any complaint to the opposite parties but on the contrary he had paid all the bills which is seen as per Exhibit B1. No evidence by way of an expert is also taken to prove that the wiring harness had been damaged upon the
mistake committed by the 2nd opposite party while repairing. If the repair work done by the opposite parties were not with the consent of the complainant, he should have objected to pay the amount. Again as per the A5 Repair Order form the inventory list contains underbody (scratches/damages) but has been noted as nil in this document. So that was not intended to be repaired. As the entire amount had been paid by the complainant and the failure of production of valid evidence to prove that the vehicle was continuously shown damages even after the repair by the 2nd opposite party, we infer that there is no deficiency in repairing the vehicle on the part of the opposite parties.
5. The vehicle was entrusted on 04-04-2017 as per the Exhibits A3 and A4. But the same was delivered only on 30-06-2017.The opposite party has contended that the complainant has delayed in the payment of advance which was one of the reason for delay. But no evidence has been produced by the opposite party 2 to
support this contention. Further they contend that they had placed order for the wiring kits and lock kit to the manufacturer but have not produced any copy of such order form or intimation of delay from the manufacturer. So the delay of about 90 days is not properly explained by the 2nd opposite party and we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in delaying the delivery of the vehicle repaired to the complainant.
The delay caused in the delivery of the vehicle which was used for the business of the complainant has caused financial loss and mental agony which should be compensated. The 1st opposite party is also vicariously liable for the deficiency of the 2nd opposite party, its authorised service agency.
Hence in the light of above discussion we allow the complaint in part and direct the opposite parties to pay 25000/- as compensation and 2500 towards litigation cost.
The order shall be complied within 30 days failing which the award amount shall carry 9%interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13th day of September, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 – K. Mohanlal
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Bill dtd.20-02-17 issued by 2nd opposite party
A2 – Bill dtd.20-02-17 issued by 2nd opposite party
A3- Bill No.RBR18J0000229 issued by 2nd opposite party
A4 –Bill No.RBR18J000230 issued by 2nd opposite party
A5-Manual repair order form issued by 2nd opposite party
A6 –Copy of Registration certificate
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 –Copy of history of vehicle (KL5AA2475)
By Order
Assistant Registrar
